The following is a portion of a series of reflections on the book Instruments in the Redeemer’s Hands by Paul David Tripp. You may also want to read the first and second reflection in this series.

“Humans need truth from outside themselves to make sense out of life” (45). This is a monumental statement from Tripp, bearing both spiritual and philosophical ramifications. If humans cannot define truth, then all of life is a decision-making process of the most important degree: who defines truth? There are numerous sources that would claim to provide truth: the news, religions, a pantheon of gods, spiritual beings, fellow humans, even espn.com and the iPhone. If truth must be received from outside of oneself, then the decision to listen to one source over another, or to amalgamate various sources, is the decision to believe one truth–or version of truth–over another.

Further, many of these information-providing sources do not themselves claim to define truth, but to pass on information that is true. The distinction is not merely worthy of academic argument. If a news source, for example, is only passing on truth, then the question is begged: where is the source of the truth passed on? Truth definition is left largely, then, in the realm of religion and philosophy. Some would claim tolerance and allow for relativistic truth. But this is nonsense; to state that all opinions are truth is to make truth an absurd contradiction. All that is left, then, is to choose one of the many conflicting truth claimants, like Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism.

But before that choice can be made, another realization dawns. Truth on its face is rarely enough. Humans beings are ultimately what Tripp calls “interpreters” or “meaning-makers” (41). It is not enough to look up and see a particular arrangement of cones on the retina. Humans must determine that what they see is sky, and the pigment is blue. In fact, there is interpretation in determining that “up” is in fact “up.” The question is not just one of truth, then, but what to make of that truth.

Tripp details Genesis 1 and 3 as primary instances where God purports to define truth, and then Satan seeks to interpret truth. God told Adam and Eve to not eat of a particular tree, or they would die. Satan–in Tripp’s words–interprets God’s truth to be something else. Here, though, Tripp pushes the boundaries of what can be seen as interpretation. Satan does not merely interpret God’s words; he denies them. He re-defines truth, or better, causes Eve to decide which truth-claim she will act upon: God’s or Satan’s. Satan certainly does provide an interpretation of what his truth-claim will provide–the ability to see and function as God–but Satan’s truth claim is in opposition to God’s.

This can all seem a bit philosophical and heady; theoretical, and best for writing but perhaps for not living. However, there is a practical and essential component of living wrapped up in these realizations. If humans must decide on a particular set of truths to truth, and then choose an interpreter for those truths, then man is deeply dependent upon the claimant and interpreter they choose. The Christian–choosing God for both truth-giver and truth-interpreter–is often inconsistent, believing God for some truths but rejecting him for many others. The pagan–choosing some other religion, and ultimately himself as at least truth-interpreter–must be shown the contradictions in their own beliefs. This all must occur before a particular relationship or need can be addressed. Truth must be determined before lives can be changed.